Although it has been often suggested ( and stated) that the Mig 15 is a further development of the Ta 183, it is more of a superficial resemblance. The F-86 Sabre owes more to the Me 262 ( with some original me 262 parts actually fitted to the prototype), than does the Mig. The Argentinian "Pulqui" was the direct descendant of Kurt Tanks' design, and was something of a flop. It actually got to fire a couple of shots in anger, but with little other claim to fame. It was overlooked in favour of battle proven second hand Sabres. There is a resemblance to the Mk 3 version of the Ta 183, but that is about it, and the Russians have always claimed that it was an indigenous design. On the other hand, the Russians claim a lot of things that are dubious. I have always believed that the bulk of nations will take the positive aspects of a design, change a couple of things, and then claim it as original, for the sake of national pride.
Which jet was better, the Me 262 or the Gloster Meteor?
- Thread starter BountyHunter15
- Start date
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
NOT TRUE!! If you're talking about some of the flap carriage assemblies, these were made by NA and were copied from the German examples, 262 parts were not used on F-86 prototypes. There was an old thread about this and the original source of this information was misquoted. No manufacturer in their right mind would ever use components of an enemy combatant aircraft on a brand new aircraft!!!!
Thanks for clearing that up. I have read that the leading slats from the Me 262 were used on the forerunner of the F86, although they did not stipulate whether these were unused factory items, or parts stripped from existing aircraft. I seem to remember it was on a static mock up, and not a true flying prototype. It was some years back, and I can't give you a reference on it, but I distinctly remember reading about it. The video documentary from "Scorched Earth " titled "German Jet fighters" also mentions it . In the reference book, "Luftwaffe secret projects; 1939-1945:Fighters" the authors made the claim that the F86 had Messerschmitt influence, while the Mig followed Focke- wulf development. In fact, I'll dig it out and see if any more interesting bits are there. Once again, it proves you need to dig deep sometimes to get the correct information or data.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Well I'll call the BS flag on many so-called authors who either make up this stuff or speculate on the basis on armchair aviation experience. It is well documented NA came up with the 35 degree sweep on the F-86's wings and tail feathers based on captured German data, the MiG-15 designers followed suit. Construction wise these aircraft have little if not nothing at all in common with German aircraft. I've worked on both aircraft and the MiG-15 actually has more in common with the F-80 in the way the engine is mounted and the way it's removed from the aircraft!!!
Maybe you should!!! The bulk of people who use these forums are in the "arm chair " expert league, as they don't have the opportunity, like yourself, to actually be physically involved with the aircraft discussed. Don't take this the wrong way, as I am not intending to be critical, either personally or technically. To satisfy my own curiosity, I just looked up the point in context i.e, the use of Me 262 parts on the prototypes, and found 3 websites ( "airpower" being one of them) that say as much. I could not find the book that I was looking for, but I'll keep searching. From what I know of the post war arms race between the victors, much has been made of German (Nazi?) advanced technology, particularly that of swept wings. I don't remember mentioning construction methods or engine fitment, just influences from WW2 designers from several different companies. Just like Von Braun and his rockets, they gave the rest of the world a technical leg up, so to speak. The XP86 was redesigned to swept wing configuration, influenced ( like the B47) by captured technology. If there is some urban myth that is going around that original Me 262 leading edge slats were used on this plane, maybe it could be investigated properly. I originally joined this forum a few months back, for the very purpose of getting the facts, instead of the folklore. It seems that there is a something of an "Us and Them " attitude at times when it come to who has access to what data/information. I don't have a problem in being wrong, as long as the truth comes out.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I was just lucky and blessed to be able to have some great opportunities. It irks me however when you have so-called experts writing about things they have never seen up close and personal, let alone flown or maintained them! At least you have the sense to listen (and learn) from those who experienced some of this stuff. Personally, if there's something I don't know or haven't had the experience with, I just don't comment.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
There will be some people who see incorrect information and repeat it not knowing if it's factual or not. The advantage of these forums are the ability to learn and discuss the facts and figures involved.
As far as the F-86 is concerned, the leading edge slats were developed from German research and physical flight data, as were the swept wings research data that had been gathered from 1940 through 1945.
German flight data was gathered on various aircraft, including flight characteristics of the Me163 Komet, which did have a sweep angle of 28 degrees unlike the incidental swept wings of the Me262, which were swept for CoG adjustments, not mach flight. Messershmitt was aware of the nessecity of swept wings for near-mach flight and this was to be addressed in the next generation Me262 in the HG series. Dr. Lippisch was also aware of the design contributions and used that formula in his delta wing designs.
All of this data was valuable as it allowed the next generation of jet aircraft to increase thier speed without dangers, such as the F-84 suffered as it approached critical speeds, even though it's engine was more than capable of pushing it over 700 miles an hour.
So while there was never anything physically applied to U.S. aircraft from German aircraft, the flight/test data was.
I'm really glad you took my comments positively. It's really easy to get off on the wrong foot with someone when you don't come across as intended.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
I personally don't think there is anything wrong with making an educated guess, based on reading and experience as long as it is presented as a guess and not an irrefutable fact. Now I may be guilty of not stating the "guess" word as often as it might be warranted.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
No worries
I agree 100%. Where I get tweaked is when you have folks with no aviation experience what so ever attempting to peddle their "guesses and assumptions" as facts - the example of the 262 LE flap carriage installed on an F-86 is a perfect example. Regardless where this myth came from, those of us who worked in a production aircraft facility knows this could never happen.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,311
- Jun 25, 2013
As an aircraft or as a combat aircraft? They're not quite the same thing. I think that one can argue that the Meteor was a better aircraft than the Me262, but the Me262 was a better combat aircraft.
As flying testbeds, they were both instrumental in proving that jet powered flight was a practical proposition. I don't have airspeed figures for the he178, rate of climb etc, so comparisons from my part would be guess work. Either way, they were both valuable pioneering aircraft.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Of course the 262 was better than the Meteor in combat, the 262 was used in the role of fighter, heavy interceptor, ground attack and bomber. The closest the Meteor came to combat was intercepting the inbound V-1s and scoring ground kills in strafing missions. It never squared off against the Me262 but did get bombed (616 squadron) by a flight of Ar234s.
As far as "better aircraft", that was marginal. In comparing the two, the early Meteor had an advantage of being faster, yes, but the Meteor at full speed also had a tendancy to start "snaking" which was remedied by reducing the throttle. The Me262 was about 40 miles an hour slower when comparing top speeds, but it was stable at it's max cruising speed.
As far as "better aircraft", that was marginal. In comparing the two, the early Meteor had an advantage of being faster, yes, but the Meteor at full speed also had a tendancy to start "snaking" which was remedied by reducing the throttle. The Me262 was about 40 miles an hour slower when comparing top speeds, but it was stable at it's max cruising speed.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Gloster Meteor F.8 @ 600mph (965kph)
Me262A-1/a @ 559mph (900kph)
My apologies, 41 miles an hour faster, I was "rounding" the numbers.
Me262A-1/a @ 559mph (900kph)
My apologies, 41 miles an hour faster, I was "rounding" the numbers.
Which arrived in time for the Korean "war" not WW2. The first to enter service were delivered on 10 December 1949, to No.1 Squadron at Tangmere. It's hardly a fair comparison to the Me 262 as it benefited from a further four years of development, most crucially in engines. The F.3 was about as good as it got in 1945.
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I was giving the Meteor an "edge" in comparison...
The fact remains that all first generation jets were comparable in thier performance. While one type may have been a little faster, the other was a bit more manouverable and yet another may have climbed faster and so on.
If, and this is a huge *if*, they had ever squared off in battle (Meteor, Me262, P-80, etc), it would have come down to pilot skill over thier adversary and the ability for these early machines to hold up during the fight. The Meteor was not without it's problems, the high-speed snaking, the occasional engine failure and troublesome ejection seat, guns jamming, etc. The Me262 had difficulties and so did the P-80. All the early jets had advantages as well as short-comings that would have pretty much levelled the playing field.
The fact remains that all first generation jets were comparable in thier performance. While one type may have been a little faster, the other was a bit more manouverable and yet another may have climbed faster and so on.
If, and this is a huge *if*, they had ever squared off in battle (Meteor, Me262, P-80, etc), it would have come down to pilot skill over thier adversary and the ability for these early machines to hold up during the fight. The Meteor was not without it's problems, the high-speed snaking, the occasional engine failure and troublesome ejection seat, guns jamming, etc. The Me262 had difficulties and so did the P-80. All the early jets had advantages as well as short-comings that would have pretty much levelled the playing field.
I agree with you above, all those early jets had some serious problems. The Me 262 was hardly service ready when introduced.
I still don't think that a Meteor F.8 is a fair comparison with a war time Me 262. It was a considerable development. The Derwent powered F.3, with the more powerful Derwent IV engines, didn't make 500mph (officially 493mph at 30,000ft) and was therefore somewhat slower than the Me 262.
Cheers
Steve
I still don't think that a Meteor F.8 is a fair comparison with a war time Me 262. It was a considerable development. The Derwent powered F.3, with the more powerful Derwent IV engines, didn't make 500mph (officially 493mph at 30,000ft) and was therefore somewhat slower than the Me 262.
Cheers
Steve
If we compared a Luftwaffe jet to an earlier model Allied jet, this forum would go nuts...
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
- Poll
